JBGS vs REG Stock Comparison
JBG SMITH Properties vs Regency Centers Corporation
REG leads
REG leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from JBGS.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support REG, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
JBG SMITH Properties
Regency Centers Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors REG over JBGS, 48 versus 40 as of Sep 5, 2026. REG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while JBGS holds the stronger value profile. REG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor REG today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. REG lead: Reversed — JBGS led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; REG now leads by 8.
Compare JBG SMITH Properties and Regency Centers Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare JBGS and REG against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Risk Resilience15%42 vs 77REG +35
- Quality30%9 vs 43REG +34
- Value30%65 vs 43JBGS +22
- Momentum25%46 vs 43Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor REG. REG’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; JBGS keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +9
No new signals fired.
REG's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JBGS and REG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
REG (Regency Centers Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
JBGS (JBG SMITH Properties): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 44.9% against 12.2%.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
REGREG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
REGREG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
JBGSJBGS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
REGREG on Risk Resilience, by 35 points.
Analyst upside
REGREG on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | JBGS | REG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.1% | +13.8% | REG has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +14% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Sell | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 8 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor REG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | REG | 40 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | REGon balance | revenue growth 1.4% vs 0.3%; EPS growth -221.9% vs -10.3%; TTM ROE -13.3% vs 9.6%; gross margin 20.3% vs 35.1% — REG takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | JBGS | Value 65 vs 43 |
| Technicals | REG | Price vs 50-day -12.7% vs -4.5%; vs 200-day -22.9% vs 0% |
| Risk Resilience | REG | Risk Resilience 42 vs 77 |
| Analyst expectations | REG | Target upside 11.1% vs 13.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of JBGS and REG and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 8 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on REG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3REG lead: Reversed — JBGS led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; REG now leads by 8.
- Today
- REG +8
- 40 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- JBGS +8
- 55 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- JBGS +1
- 46 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- REG +1
- 52 vs 53
The lead changed hands 10 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when REG moved ahead of JBGS.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (13.66%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.88%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.42%)
JBGS is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.43%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.87%, AIQ +2 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1JBGS closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to REG's edge.
- 2JBGS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3REG's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
REG leads on balance| Metric | JBGS | REG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.4% | 0.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -221.9% | -10.3% |
| Gross margin | 20.3% | 35.1% |
| Operating margin | 0.3% | 40.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -13.3% | 9.6% |
| Debt to equity | 2.41 | 0.8 |
Technicals
REG has the stronger structure| Metric | JBGS | REG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.3 | 43 |
| ADX (14) | 33.8 | 25.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.7% | -4.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -22.9% | 0% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 44.9% | 12.2% |
Risk
REG is the more resilient| Metric | JBGS | REG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.24 | 0.04 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.74 | 0.15 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.11 | 0.24 |
| Max drawdown | -53.7% | -9.6% |
| Current drawdown | -51.5% | -8.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 33.6% | 15.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3% | -1.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, JBGS or REG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, REG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 48 against JBGS's 40. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. JBGS is not without a case — it holds the better value profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is JBGS or REG the better buy right now?
REG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor REG over JBGS?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. REG leads Risk Resilience by 35 points; REG leads Quality by 34 points; JBGS leads Value by 22 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, JBGS or REG?
Analyst price targets imply +11.1% upside for JBGS and +13.8% for REG, so the Street currently favors REG. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, JBGS or REG?
JBGS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JBGS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, JBGS or REG?
REG on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, JBGS or REG?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, JBGS or REG?
REG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. REG on Risk Resilience, by 35 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is JBGS more profitable than REG?
REG leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 20.3% vs 35.1%; operating margin 0.3% vs 40.3%; ttm roe -13.3% vs 9.6%.
Is REG's lead over JBGS getting stronger or weaker?
REG lead: Reversed — JBGS led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; REG now leads by 8. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands 10 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when REG moved ahead of JBGS.
What would change the JBGS vs REG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JBGS closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to REG's edge; JBGS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; REG's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about JBGS and REG?
JBGS: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. REG: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on JBGS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On REG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare JBGS and REG with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.